Rudd has a new policy for forestry

…meaning Rudd has a new policy for hippies, greenies and Tasmania (the primary source of Australian’s hippies, greenies, ferals and treehuggers, generally, Bless ‘Em All).

This is always interesting. In Australia, “Legislation”, “Environment” and “Tasmania” come together to voltron the word (you heard me) “Cool”, ever since the Franklin River Dam, and a certain constitutional crisis (kids, ask your teachers). This was the famous time in the 1980s when the Tasmanian government took the Australian Federal government to the High Court, over who got to decide whether or not a hydro-electric dam would be built in Tasmania. It began with a planned dam, a discovery of Indigenous caves in danger, a state referendum, a premier replaced, a blockade, finally culminating in an election. And that’s when it got interesting:

On March 5, 1983, the Australian Labor Party won the federal election with a large swing. However, in Tasmania, the vote went against the national trend and the Liberals held all five seats. The new prime minister, Bob Hawke, had vowed to stop the dam from being constructed, and it has been suggested that the controversy over the dam helped to bring down the Liberal government of Malcolm Fraser. Hawke’s government passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, which overrode the state legislation.

However, the Tasmanian government appealed the decision to the High Court, claiming that the federal government had no powers under the Constitution to pass the legislation. They claimed that as the right to legislate for the environment was not named in the Constitution, and was thus a residual power, that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act was unconstitutional. The federal government, however, claimed that they had the right to do so, under the ‘external affairs’ provision of the Constitution as, by blocking the dam’s construction, they were fulfilling their responsibilities under an international treaty.

Americans, just think New York takes Congress to the Supreme Court, saying the EPA is unconstitutional. Bear in mind that blockade was pulling in 20,000-odd people. In the 1980s. In Tasmania (current population only 484,700). Like I said.

So, we come to this. Ringleader Senator Bob Brown is now, and has ever been, leader of the Australian Greens (for whom I vote). He was also the first openly gay parliamentarian. This all means that environmental legislation is news, and makes a difference not only in Tasmania but elsewhere, with our system of preferential voting (this is according to the electoral model, not like Florida’s approach in the US, or anything).

Prior to the previous election, former Labor leader Mark Latham announced a terribly unpopular policy: his government would protect enormous areas of forests from logging, and offer the industry AUD800m or so in compensation. It did not fly, but his election chances sure sank (another minor point – Tasmania is home to all of the workers in the logging industry. And their families. And the small economies that run on their salaries). Howard responded at the time with his more popular Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.

Rudd is walking a fine line with this one. Latham blew the votes of industry last time, but any ground returned to them this time risks blowing the votes (and the preferences, potentially) of the Australian Greens. With near-50%-returns on primary polling, he may simply not mind the risk. Currently, Rudd has offered:

• Support for the principles underpinning the Regional Forest Agreements and work with the Tasmanian Government to implement the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement
• Labor will boost the export of forest products through the establishment of a $20 million Forest Industries Development Fund, Mr Rudd said today.
• Extra money and support for the joint industry and Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union training company to help improve the skill-base and capacity of the current and future forest industries workforce.
• AUD8m for examining the impacts of climate change on forests. While increased carbon encourages tree growth, changes in extremes of wet and dry may harm both native forests and plantations.

Not bad. For context, the ‘relevance’, for want of a better word, of the foresty industry can be summarised thus (this is government information, meaning industry information):

• Turnover: AUD18bn per year (1% of GDP; 2% if one includes printing, publishing, etc.)
• Employs 83,000 people (directly)
• The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates some 5% of Australian statistical local areas are dependent upon foresty and logging in Tasmania

There are far more connections, indirectly, of industry and manufacturing to logging, but not directly enough that I’d consider them voting links. One can see how they’d be courted by politicians, though. Taking Tasmania just might give a party control over both houses.

Even with the money for the CFMEU, though, Rudd is potentially re-exposing targets only recently hit. His support for the Regional Forest Agreements and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement are the best move, rather than trying to start from scratch. It means he’s copying Liberal policy (to which they have already alluded), but assures industry that he is ‘for’ the status quo, while potentially, depending upon the language employed by the Honourable Member of Parliament for Kingsford Smith (NSW) and the Labor party’s Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment, Heritage and the Arts Peter Garrett. Given his own tendency to be seen as an easy target, he’ll probably keep whatever he says – promise-or other-wise – off newspaper pages, where he can.

The key (for me) is this: the language of Rudd’s support for the Regional Forest Agreements and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement suggest both industry and environmentalist sides of the fight might see room for each of them to maneuvre. Here is the industry’s response:

Tasmanian Forest Industries Association chief executive Terry Edwards said the policy rightly recognised that the Labor position taken to the last election was “inappropriate”.

“I believe the policy tells us they have been careful to listen to what we have told them since the last election,” he said.

Labor cannot take Green votes for granted, but they can probably take them enough-for-granted-for-government work, if you follow. Much like the union vote. These are parties that have little reason to swing for the Liberal party, come the election. Now, Industry might see Labor coming around a bit to their way of thinking – at the very least displaying an awareness that getting on their wrong side at the last election hurt, badly. They are like any other group or individual.

In the textbooks, we vote for who best represents us. In practice we vote for who we see more sympathetic to, and influenced by, our view. Of course, one hopes Australia’s Labor does not go completely batty like England’s did.

Save the planet: stop having children

Save the planet: plant more trees stop banging your wife! From today’s Guardian, and finally (it’s time to make dinner and upload photos to Flickr):

Science chief: cut birthrate to save Earth

The new head of the Science Museum [of London, it should be said] has an uncompromising view about how global warming should be dealt with: get rid of a few billion people. Chris Rapley, who takes up his post on September 1, is not afraid of offending. ‘I am not advocating genocide,’ said Rapley. ‘What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate – by improving contraception, education and healthcare – we will stop the world’s population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.

…

‘That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity. The crucial point is that to achieve this goal you would only have to spend a fraction of the money that will be needed to bring about technological fixes, new nuclear power plants or renewable energy plants. However, everyone has decided, quietly, to ignore the issue.’

I have a colleague who will, I suspect, rather enjoy that story. Rapley is basically a rocket scientist, and is currently head of the British Antarctic Survey (give me a job?). Clearly the way forward for the Science Musuem has been declared. I can’t wait.

It isn’t all lofty brainy Philosophical Society talk, either:

Rapley is passionate about making displays and instruments far more accessible. ‘If you look at the Science Museum’s great engine hall, there are wonderful machines on display but the accompanying explanations are quite often above most people’s heads. Most children today probably don’t realise these machines run on heat and water, but that is never mentioned. We need different explanations for different levels of understanding: the six-year-old, the 60-year-old, the PhD student. At the same time, there is no point having a few touch-screens about the place. People can only use them one at a time. One idea would be to send free texts to visitors’ mobile phones, according to their needs, as they stand in front of displays. Just about everyone has a mobile phone, after all.’

For which I’m also quite excited.

Asda palm oil ban to save rainforests

Also from today’s Guardian – I was at the New York Botanical Gardens all afternoon, so I’m just catching up, now. They’re okay, if you’re interested. But, then, I’m from Sydney: our Royal Botanic Gardens are lovely, free, and right on Sydney Harbour:

It’s hard to compete. Anyway:

Two of the country’s biggest retail names are to ban the sale of palm oil from unsustainable sources because of fears that it is leading to the destruction of rainforests. Palm oil has become one of the world’s biggest traded commodities and is now the unidentified ‘vegetable oil’ in an estimated one in 10 of all products sold in Britain, from chocolate to cosmetics to animal feed.

The booming demand in Europe and Asia has led to growing concern that huge swaths of rainforest are being cut down to make way for plantations – damaging important eco-systems on which animals and local people depend – and threatening the survival of one of the world’s last great apes, the orang-utan, the poster boy for a gathering global campaign. Rainforest destruction also accounts for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for climate change.

Asda has become Britain’s first supermarket chain to tell suppliers it will not accept products unless they can guarantee their palm oil is from sustainably run plantations. Body Shop, the toiletries and cosmetics company, has established a sustainable organic supplier in Colombia. Asda has banned palm oil sourced from the worst affected regions in Borneo and Sumatra and within a year hopes to have banned all unsustainable palm oil from 500 products.

Here’s the fun part: Asda is owned by Wal-Mart. Yes, while having its own oversight-site (asdawatch), Asda is at the same time trying – probably with some success, here – to wrong-foot the goody-two-shoes crowd. Americans beware (!), this is becoming a fashion, over there. The Guardian tells us that, in the last 10 days alone,

• Waitrose banned controversial farrowing crates on pig farms supplying its own-brand bacon products. This week it will reveal that own-brand milk producers will give part of their income to wildlife restoration.
• London council leaders proposed a 10p ‘tax’ or even a ban on plastic bags.
• PC World revealed a prototype of a ‘carbon neutral’ computer with a wooden monitor box. It should go on sale in October.
• Tesco launched a low-energy Freeview digital TV receiver.
• Harrogate Spa Water said it would make lighter bottles to save plastic.
• Ikea became Britain’s first major retailer to ban plastic bags.

That carbon neutral computer sounds interesting. I imagine so long as you do not drive it home or switch it on, it stays that way?

The new ‘Mediterranean diet’: prickly-pear cacti and Miner’s lettuce

From today’s Guardian:

Over-heated Med stokes tourism fears

As temperatures in southern Europe reach record heights, traditional holiday playgrounds may soon become unbearably hot and dangerously dry.

…

Temperatures are likely to reach 43C in the shade this week, making this the hottest summer on record for Greece in the past century. Macedonia has declared a state of emergency. Spain, Italy and France are experiencing droughts that are measuring up to become the worst on record.

…

Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Cyprus have all endured searing temperatures over the past few weeks as a region of high pressure extended east from the Azores, blocking weather fronts that normally keep the eastern Mediterranean fairly cool at this time of year. Forest fires have been raging across the region – Greece’s fire service reported 115 fires in one 24-hour period last week.

Last week a five-day blaze on Mount Parnitha destroyed vast tracts of trees, along with hundreds of plants endemic to the region. Unique species of deer, turtles, snakes and hares were killed.

But to come to the point:

Despite the extreme heat, the Greek Tourism Ministry said the country was braced for its third successive bumper tourist season, with Britons, who begin arriving en masse this weekend, expected to lead an estimated 15 million visitors this year.

But the industry is deeply worried. The Mediterranean’s worsening pollution and shifting weather patterns may start to drive away tourists.

Ah. For some, converting climate change/global warming to money is easier than others. Amusingly enough, the army of Brits travelling to the Greek Isles will of course pump tonnes of CO₂ into the air on their way in and out. I used the example of Rome or London being able to tax that tourism to address their pollution problems (dirty buildings and monuments), however that avenue is not open to Greece.

Mention in the Guardian article of a recent book by Michel Houellebecq about post-environmental-change savagery reminded me of the very good The Drowned World, by JG Ballard. Earth Abides, by George R Stewart is another good one. They impress particularly because of when they were published (1962 and 1949, respectively. Houellebecq’s was quite recent).

Europe’s problem’s are worse than mere climate change and increasing sea temperatures (as though those weren’t enough). Desertification, and sand and heat blown north from Africa, are on the horizon. As an encroaching Sahara just plain runs out of continential Africa, its sandy, desert winds blow up through the South of Europe and onwards. The United Nations University put together quite an interesting report, dealing specifically with desertification (we are all assumed to be its malcontents). Flick through it, if you have the time (Australians, I’m looking in your direction).